The Tongues- sign of the Holy Ghost or a gift?

[Butch5]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking in tongues---

 

 

 

I'm from a very strict Pentecostal upbringing and from day one into this faith I've been told and taught that the speaking of tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirits 'touching or baptizing' someone.

I believe and engage actively in speaking the mysterious language and enjoy my time in the Spirit but a fundamental question that is really hitting me again and again is that to what extent is this belief that only speaking in tongues can truly signify the presence of the Holy Ghost?

 

Acts 2 mentions that when the Holy Ghost had come upon the apostles they spoke in tongues. Do we take this as the final sign of the Holy Ghost then? After some studying I think there might be a very fundamental flaw in this assumption. There are many brothers and sisters in the Christian faith who lead holy-lives and in submission to God but don't necessarily speak in tongues. Does that mean the Holy Ghost avoids these people and hasn't touched them? No, I feel it obviously doesn't! The Holy Spirit touches and enters any and every believer who asks of Him to do so with a humble heart. Regardless of one denomination or belief system, the Holy Ghost has been given to all of us and touches us differently. To some it causes the spirit to break free from the limitations of the human speech and break into spiritual Glossolalia and xeno-Glossolalia, to others it causes tremors in the body and heating sensations, still to others many other diverse signs. I feel we do wrong to limit the presence of the Holy Ghost to just the one sign of speaking in tongues. I know just so many fellow Christians who don't speak tongues but I find them to be more spiritual and anointed than I am as a tongue speaker.

 

I Think this is a question worth asking and if any has an answer please do clarify me. I may be wrong but my question isn't.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!

 

Michael

Hi Michael,

 

Paul said that tongues was a sign for unbelievers, not believers. It's my understanding that the gift of tongues was a first century gift given by the Holy Spirit to some believers as a sign to the unbelieving Jews. The Scriptures show us that it was a sign of coming judgment (destruction of Jerusalem) on the Jews for rejecting Christ.  Paul also said that tongues would come to an end. Since it was sign of coming judgment it would seem that after that judgment the sign would no longer be necessary and would as Paul said, end. So, to answer your question, no.

 

could you give scripture reference where tongues are a sign of coming judgment(destruction of Jerusalem)? also the Bible does say that tongues will cease, but also tell us when that will happen:

1 Cor 13:8-10

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

KJV

when that which is perfect is come, is not when the cannon of scriptures was given, for it also says that knowledge shall vanish, knowledge didn't vanish with the fullness of scriptures but rather knowledge increased with scriptures. peter preached Joel's Joel 2) prophecy at Pentecost, and that prophecy spoke that servants and handmaiden prophesy. but also said that the end of those days the sun would darken and the moon turn to blood on the great notable day the Lord come. when that is perfect; is when our fullness comes when I was a child a spake as a child, our fullness comes on the great notable the Lord come.

 

Hi Disciple3,

 

I've written a paper on this subject that you may be interested in reading It's here, "Spiritual Gifts and Their Purpose". The passages of Scripture that speaking of the signs being to Israel are Isaiah chapters 8 and 28. Both chapters speak of a stumbling stone and rock of offense which according to the apostles applies to Christ. In chapter 28 Isaiah says though stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people. This is what Paul is quoting in 1 Cor. 14 when he says,

 

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.  (1Co 14:1 KJG)

 

Paul is quoting Isaiah 28. The sign of tongues was a sign to Israel as Isaiah said. Notice Paul quotes "this people" that's the same thing Isaiah said. "This people" is Israel. Tongues was for a sing to unbelieving Israel, particularly the leadership.

 

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. (Isa 28:11 KJV)

 

Judgment is prophesied against them.

 

14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. (Isa 28:14-21 KJV)

 

KJV  Isaiah 29:1 Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices.

2 Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel.

3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. (Isa 29:1-4 KJV)

 

The cornerstone is Christ which we know from the apostles. So, we know that this prophecy takes place at the time of Christ. It was in AD.70 that the Lord rose up against Jerusalem. It was just prior to this judgment that tongues would be used as a sign to the Jewish leadership that judgment was coming. 

 

 

Regarding the cessation of tongues, if you look closely you'll notice that Paul does not say when tongues will end. He says prophecy and knowledge will end when the maturity comes. I believe he's referring to to completion of the Gospel message. The apostles were not given the entirety of the message all at once, it was revealed to them over time. I believe Paul is saying when the gospel message is complete (the perfect is come) then prophecy and knowledge (supernatural) would end. He said, I know in part but when the maturity comes that which is in part shall be done way with. It was prophecy and knowledge that were in part. When speaking of the cessation of prophecy and knowledge Paul uses the passive voice, yet when he speaks of the cessation of tongues he uses the middle voice indicating that tongues would cease of its own accord. It would seem logical that if tongues was a sign to the unbelieving leadership if Jerusalem it would no longer be necessary after the destruction of Jerusalem and the disbanding of the Priesthood.

 

I am Sorry, we may not see eye to eye on this, I think we all may be guilty to a certain extent of making scriptures fit our belief/doctrine, instead of making our doctrine fit scripture. But I believe your reference to I Cor. 14:

1 Cor 14:21-23

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

KJV

This is confirming Pentecost, which Pentecost had nothing to do with unknown tongues or Angel tongues, it was all different languages that was spoke at Pentecost, that all might hear in their own language/other tongues, and Many knowing the disciples were all from the same area/tongue, then they believed because they heard in their own language. and then even some didn't believe/ wouldn't hear. there are tongues/languages. then there are spiritual gifts of Tongues. rightly dividing the truth/knowing the difference. to say Unknown tongues were a sign for unbelievers, and your interpretation of Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 14 is right. then Acts 19 makes no sense,

Acts 19:1-7

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

KJV

for there were believers that Spake in tongues after believing, but after Paul giving them the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. paul even contradict your understanding of I cor. by saying if unbelievers hear everyone speaking in tongues they would say that the Church people was mad. so your interpretation would be that the Spiritual sign of speaking in tongues would drive unbelievers from church not to the Church. Also Your reference in Isaiah Is speaking Of Jesus, stammering means mockery, Jesus came making a mockery of the Scribes understanding of scriptures, and he spake in another tongue( Aramaic)

Isa 28:11-14

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

KJV

Here we have "he" speaking(one person) not men, as you refer to, also look to whom is being Spoken, scornful men that rule this people in Jerusalem. Jesus speaking to the scribesof this people (Hebrews)

 

There's no contradiction when the tongues are understood as known languages. That's the only tongues that the Scriptures speak of. When Paul speaks of unknown tongues, it's a language unknown to the speaker, not unknown to humanity. And when he speaks of the tongues of angels he uses the conditional "if". He's not saying a person can speak in an angelic language, he's using a hypothetical example, "If" I spoke with the language of angels and had not love. The Spiritual give of tongues was a speaker speaking in a language he did not speak, that is what we see at Pentecost.

 

Additionally, it doesn't contradict 1 Cor 14. Paul said if the unbelievers came into the church and everyone was speaking in tongues they would think the believers were mad. He was addressing the issue of order and speaking orderly. Look at what happened when the apostles first began to speak in tongues.

 

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. (Act 2:1 KJV)

 

Some mocked and said the apostles were drunk. Remember the context of Isaiah 28 is the Jews. Paul isn't talking about 21 century Christians.

 

 Isaiah 28 in the Septuagint reads,

 

LXE  Isaiah 28:11 by reason of the contemptuous words of the lips, by means of another language: for they shall speak to this people, saying to them, (Isa 28:11 LXE)

 

ok first you are adding to scripture, Paul Is Not saying or did not Say "If I could Speak in angel tongues." really big difference here. But you guys have to add the word "could" to scripture, thus making scripture say what you want it to say not what it says. second you are still mixing examples of other languages in scriptures with rules applied to spiritual gifts. the gifts are of speaking in tongues and to another interpretation. there was no interpreter at Pentecost. and to be able to interpret Chinese or Spanish is not a supernatural gift. again let me express this with all I can. If tongues are used in Church in scriptures is just a foreign language, then it would not be and could never be an UNKNOWN TONGUE: for the one speaking that tongue/language would know the tongue, or either the Interpreter would know the language/tongue, so the only way your side can say there is no unknown tongue or angel tongues is to add to the wording of the scriptures" Though I speak" to "though I could speak" plus: 1 Cor 14:27

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

KJV

try adding "could" to this verse and you mess up the whole thought of the verse, so you would have to say that If a Spanish missionary came to your church that could only speak in Spanish, he would not be allowed to speak; for there has to be two or more to speak in Spanish before it should be considered in order plus an interpreter would be required with your doctrine. then if your two or more speakers know Spanish, it would not or could not be an UNKNOWN TONGUE!

as far as your Septuagint seeing in verse 13 That the Lord is speaking; most English translations that I have checked uses HE in 11. "the Lord(HE) said" vs. your's "the Lord(they) said" ????? The Hebrew on my computer uses neither He or They but seeing that the Lord is speaking; to me HE would be a better translation of who is speaking with stammering lips

 

Rather than accusing me of twisting the Scriptures it would be wise to research what I said instead of giving your opinion. Just because you think something would not be an unknown tongue because it doesn't fit your definition doesn't mean that the Scriptures don't consider it an unknown tongue.

 

KJV  1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1Co 13:1 KJV)

 

The Greek word that has been translated Though is,

 

1437 eva,n ean {eh-an'}

Meaning:  1) if, in case

 

Paul was not saying he spoke in tongues of angels, he said if he did. 

 

Secondly, with the gift of tongues the language was a language that was unknown to the speaker not to mankind. That's clear from the account of Pentecost.

 

KJV  Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Act 2:1-11 KJV)

 

There were Galileans that were speaking many different languages that they did not know. It was the spirit that gave them the utterance. The language they were speaking was not known by them. Yet those who were there could hear these men speaking their languages. 

 

An Unknown tongue is not some incoherent sounds that are made by a person and then interpreted by another. God is not the author of confusion. If you have someone just mumbling sounds and another who claims to interpret there is no way to confirm what is claimed by the two. People can be easily lead stray by buying into such assertions. People could make all kinds of claims in such a situation with no way for the church to verify the claim. That's not they way tongues works in the Scriptures. 

 

Regarding the Septuagint reading, if you research you'll find that it is the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used and not the Masoretic text which is what is in your English Bibles. The Masoretic texts from which the English Bibles are translated are of a more recent date than the Septuagint. Thereare quite a few OT quotes in the NT that do not read the same in the Masoretic text, yet are accurate in the Septuagint.

[nebula]

 

Speaking in other tongues was the primary manifestation of the Holy Spirit given to the disciples of Jesus to show the Jews gathered in Jerusalem for the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) that Jesus was the Messiah. Speaking in tongues was likewise the manifestation of the Holy Spirit given to the first Gentile converts to show to Peter and the Jews with him that God was indeed granting the Gentiles His gift of salvation.

 

I believe these were two special occasions with the need for a dramatic sign.

 

In 1 Cor. 12, tongues are listed as one of many gifts, and with that list is a mention about "some are given" to each gift. So perhaps it is valid that not all will be granted this gift?

and you could be right however you failed to explain acts 19 : Acts 19:1-7

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

KJV

which fits neither of your doctrines on tongues

 

I have to correct you, sir. I was writing an observation, not creating a doctrine. If you will notice, I used words of speculation rather than authority.

 

That another entire group manifested the gift of tongues does not negate the impact created from the two incidences I mentioned. Nor does it refute Paul's mention of "some are given".

 

For the record, I have and practice the gift of tongues. I believe it is an awesome gift! But I have also been exposed to the damaging effects of believers shoving the gift down the throats of others. While it is good for us to encourage others to be open to the various gifts, the Father never meant for us to tear each other apart over them. And the same applies to those who claim tongues are not for today, is demonic, is a fraud, etc. - it's damaging to the body.

[His_disciple3]

Speaking in other tongues was the primary manifestation of the Holy Spirit given to the disciples of Jesus to show the Jews gathered in Jerusalem for the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) that Jesus was the Messiah. Speaking in tongues was likewise the manifestation of the Holy Spirit given to the first Gentile converts to show to Peter and the Jews with him that God was indeed granting the Gentiles His gift of salvation.

 

I believe these were two special occasions with the need for a dramatic sign.

 

In 1 Cor. 12, tongues are listed as one of many gifts, and with that list is a mention about "some are given" to each gift. So perhaps it is valid that not all will be granted this gift?

and you could be right however you failed to explain acts 19 : Acts 19:1-7

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

KJV

which fits neither of your doctrines on tongues

 

I have to correct you, sir. I was writing an observation, not creating a doctrine. If you will notice, I used words of speculation rather than authority.

 

That another entire group manifested the gift of tongues does not negate the impact created from the two incidences I mentioned. Nor does it refute Paul's mention of "some are given".

 

For the record, I have and practice the gift of tongues. I believe it is an awesome gift! But I have also been exposed to the damaging effects of believers shoving the gift down the throats of others. While it is good for us to encourage others to be open to the various gifts, the Father never meant for us to tear each other apart over them. And the same applies to those who claim tongues are not for today, is demonic, is a fraud, etc. - it's damaging to the body.

Acts 19 fits neither of your answers to the purpose of tongues, so as weakly as you have tried to explain the use of tongues from scriptures these were believers not unbelievers nor were they Jews that needed to Know Jesus was the Messiah

I think we are on the same page here: for I have posted several posts within this thread, and have clearly stated that I THINK TONGUES BEING THE EVIDENCE is a false teaching, I think I even posted in one where a young girl I know was told that she had not received Jesus because she didn't speak in tongues, however the gifts have not ceased any of them and were not ever intended for just the apostles: Acts 2:38-39

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

KJV

Mark 16:15-18

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 .They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

KJV

the disciples preached and those that believed what they preached, had the supernatural gifts of the Spirit to follow them? oh and this Is red lettered meaning Jesus spoke these words Himself

[His_disciple3]

Speaking in tongues---

 

 

 

I'm from a very strict Pentecostal upbringing and from day one into this faith I've been told and taught that the speaking of tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirits 'touching or baptizing' someone.

I believe and engage actively in speaking the mysterious language and enjoy my time in the Spirit but a fundamental question that is really hitting me again and again is that to what extent is this belief that only speaking in tongues can truly signify the presence of the Holy Ghost?

 

Acts 2 mentions that when the Holy Ghost had come upon the apostles they spoke in tongues. Do we take this as the final sign of the Holy Ghost then? After some studying I think there might be a very fundamental flaw in this assumption. There are many brothers and sisters in the Christian faith who lead holy-lives and in submission to God but don't necessarily speak in tongues. Does that mean the Holy Ghost avoids these people and hasn't touched them? No, I feel it obviously doesn't! The Holy Spirit touches and enters any and every believer who asks of Him to do so with a humble heart. Regardless of one denomination or belief system, the Holy Ghost has been given to all of us and touches us differently. To some it causes the spirit to break free from the limitations of the human speech and break into spiritual Glossolalia and xeno-Glossolalia, to others it causes tremors in the body and heating sensations, still to others many other diverse signs. I feel we do wrong to limit the presence of the Holy Ghost to just the one sign of speaking in tongues. I know just so many fellow Christians who don't speak tongues but I find them to be more spiritual and anointed than I am as a tongue speaker.

 

I Think this is a question worth asking and if any has an answer please do clarify me. I may be wrong but my question isn't.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!

 

Michael

Hi Michael,

 

Paul said that tongues was a sign for unbelievers, not believers. It's my understanding that the gift of tongues was a first century gift given by the Holy Spirit to some believers as a sign to the unbelieving Jews. The Scriptures show us that it was a sign of coming judgment (destruction of Jerusalem) on the Jews for rejecting Christ.  Paul also said that tongues would come to an end. Since it was sign of coming judgment it would seem that after that judgment the sign would no longer be necessary and would as Paul said, end. So, to answer your question, no.

could you give scripture reference where tongues are a sign of coming judgment(destruction of Jerusalem)? also the Bible does say that tongues will cease, but also tell us when that will happen:

1 Cor 13:8-10

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

KJV

when that which is perfect is come, is not when the cannon of scriptures was given, for it also says that knowledge shall vanish, knowledge didn't vanish with the fullness of scriptures but rather knowledge increased with scriptures. peter preached Joel's Joel 2) prophecy at Pentecost, and that prophecy spoke that servants and handmaiden prophesy. but also said that the end of those days the sun would darken and the moon turn to blood on the great notable day the Lord come. when that is perfect; is when our fullness comes when I was a child a spake as a child, our fullness comes on the great notable the Lord come.

Hi Disciple3,

 

I've written a paper on this subject that you may be interested in reading It's here, "Spiritual Gifts and Their Purpose". The passages of Scripture that speaking of the signs being to Israel are Isaiah chapters 8 and 28. Both chapters speak of a stumbling stone and rock of offense which according to the apostles applies to Christ. In chapter 28 Isaiah says though stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people. This is what Paul is quoting in 1 Cor. 14 when he says,

 

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.  (1Co 14:1 KJG)

 

Paul is quoting Isaiah 28. The sign of tongues was a sign to Israel as Isaiah said. Notice Paul quotes "this people" that's the same thing Isaiah said. "This people" is Israel. Tongues was for a sing to unbelieving Israel, particularly the leadership.

 

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. (Isa 28:11 KJV)

 

Judgment is prophesied against them.

 

14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. (Isa 28:14-21 KJV)

 

KJV  Isaiah 29:1 Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices.

2 Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel.

3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. (Isa 29:1-4 KJV)

 

The cornerstone is Christ which we know from the apostles. So, we know that this prophecy takes place at the time of Christ. It was in AD.70 that the Lord rose up against Jerusalem. It was just prior to this judgment that tongues would be used as a sign to the Jewish leadership that judgment was coming. 

 

 

Regarding the cessation of tongues, if you look closely you'll notice that Paul does not say when tongues will end. He says prophecy and knowledge will end when the maturity comes. I believe he's referring to to completion of the Gospel message. The apostles were not given the entirety of the message all at once, it was revealed to them over time. I believe Paul is saying when the gospel message is complete (the perfect is come) then prophecy and knowledge (supernatural) would end. He said, I know in part but when the maturity comes that which is in part shall be done way with. It was prophecy and knowledge that were in part. When speaking of the cessation of prophecy and knowledge Paul uses the passive voice, yet when he speaks of the cessation of tongues he uses the middle voice indicating that tongues would cease of its own accord. It would seem logical that if tongues was a sign to the unbelieving leadership if Jerusalem it would no longer be necessary after the destruction of Jerusalem and the disbanding of the Priesthood.

I am Sorry, we may not see eye to eye on this, I think we all may be guilty to a certain extent of making scriptures fit our belief/doctrine, instead of making our doctrine fit scripture. But I believe your reference to I Cor. 14:

1 Cor 14:21-23

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

KJV

This is confirming Pentecost, which Pentecost had nothing to do with unknown tongues or Angel tongues, it was all different languages that was spoke at Pentecost, that all might hear in their own language/other tongues, and Many knowing the disciples were all from the same area/tongue, then they believed because they heard in their own language. and then even some didn't believe/ wouldn't hear. there are tongues/languages. then there are spiritual gifts of Tongues. rightly dividing the truth/knowing the difference. to say Unknown tongues were a sign for unbelievers, and your interpretation of Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 14 is right. then Acts 19 makes no sense,

Acts 19:1-7

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

KJV

for there were believers that Spake in tongues after believing, but after Paul giving them the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. paul even contradict your understanding of I cor. by saying if unbelievers hear everyone speaking in tongues they would say that the Church people was mad. so your interpretation would be that the Spiritual sign of speaking in tongues would drive unbelievers from church not to the Church. Also Your reference in Isaiah Is speaking Of Jesus, stammering means mockery, Jesus came making a mockery of the Scribes understanding of scriptures, and he spake in another tongue( Aramaic)

Isa 28:11-14

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

KJV

Here we have "he" speaking(one person) not men, as you refer to, also look to whom is being Spoken, scornful men that rule this people in Jerusalem. Jesus speaking to the scribesof this people (Hebrews)

There's no contradiction when the tongues are understood as known languages. That's the only tongues that the Scriptures speak of. When Paul speaks of unknown tongues, it's a language unknown to the speaker, not unknown to humanity. And when he speaks of the tongues of angels he uses the conditional "if". He's not saying a person can speak in an angelic language, he's using a hypothetical example, "If" I spoke with the language of angels and had not love. The Spiritual give of tongues was a speaker speaking in a language he did not speak, that is what we see at Pentecost.

 

Additionally, it doesn't contradict 1 Cor 14. Paul said if the unbelievers came into the church and everyone was speaking in tongues they would think the believers were mad. He was addressing the issue of order and speaking orderly. Look at what happened when the apostles first began to speak in tongues.

 

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. (Act 2:1 KJV)

 

Some mocked and said the apostles were drunk. Remember the context of Isaiah 28 is the Jews. Paul isn't talking about 21 century Christians.

 

 Isaiah 28 in the Septuagint reads,

 

LXE  Isaiah 28:11 by reason of the contemptuous words of the lips, by means of another language: for they shall speak to this people, saying to them, (Isa 28:11 LXE)

ok first you are adding to scripture, Paul Is Not saying or did not Say "If I could Speak in angel tongues." really big difference here. But you guys have to add the word "could" to scripture, thus making scripture say what you want it to say not what it says. second you are still mixing examples of other languages in scriptures with rules applied to spiritual gifts. the gifts are of speaking in tongues and to another interpretation. there was no interpreter at Pentecost. and to be able to interpret Chinese or Spanish is not a supernatural gift. again let me express this with all I can. If tongues are used in Church in scriptures is just a foreign language, then it would not be and could never be an UNKNOWN TONGUE: for the one speaking that tongue/language would know the tongue, or either the Interpreter would know the language/tongue, so the only way your side can say there is no unknown tongue or angel tongues is to add to the wording of the scriptures" Though I speak" to "though I could speak" plus: 1 Cor 14:27

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

KJV

try adding "could" to this verse and you mess up the whole thought of the verse, so you would have to say that If a Spanish missionary came to your church that could only speak in Spanish, he would not be allowed to speak; for there has to be two or more to speak in Spanish before it should be considered in order plus an interpreter would be required with your doctrine. then if your two or more speakers know Spanish, it would not or could not be an UNKNOWN TONGUE!

as far as your Septuagint seeing in verse 13 That the Lord is speaking; most English translations that I have checked uses HE in 11. "the Lord(HE) said" vs. your's "the Lord(they) said" ????? The Hebrew on my computer uses neither He or They but seeing that the Lord is speaking; to me HE would be a better translation of who is speaking with stammering lips

Rather than accusing me of twisting the Scriptures it would be wise to research what I said instead of giving your opinion. Just because you think something would not be an unknown tongue because it doesn't fit your definition doesn't mean that the Scriptures don't consider it an unknown tongue.

 

KJV  1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1Co 13:1 KJV)

 

The Greek word that has been translated Though is,

 

1437 eva,n ean {eh-an'}

Meaning:  1) if, in case

 

Paul was not saying he spoke in tongues of angels, he said if he did. 

 

Secondly, with the gift of tongues the language was a language that was unknown to the speaker not to mankind. That's clear from the account of Pentecost.

 

KJV  Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Act 2:1-11 KJV)

 

There were Galileans that were speaking many different languages that they did not know. It was the spirit that gave them the utterance. The language they were speaking was not known by them. Yet those who were there could hear these men speaking their languages. 

 

An Unknown tongue is not some incoherent sounds that are made by a person and then interpreted by another. God is not the author of confusion. If you have someone just mumbling sounds and another who claims to interpret there is no way to confirm what is claimed by the two. People can be easily lead stray by buying into such assertions. People could make all kinds of claims in such a situation with no way for the church to verify the claim. That's not they way tongues works in the Scriptures. 

 

Regarding the Septuagint reading, if you research you'll find that it is the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used and not the Masoretic text which is what is in your English Bibles. The Masoretic texts from which the English Bibles are translated are of a more recent date than the Septuagint. Thereare quite a few OT quotes in the NT that do not read the same in the Masoretic text, yet are accurate in the Septuagint.

let's look at the thought not just what you can write off 1 Cor 13:1-2

13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

KJV

are you saying that Paul is saying If I could have the Gift of prophecy, in your teachng on one hand you will preach that Paul was an apostle(some on your side even say the 12th apostle), But Paul is saying in your opinion he don't have the apostle's Gifts? that my friend is what we call speaking out of both sides of the mouth

now as far as your definition of though: why do you only give your interpretation NT:1437

NT:1437

<START GREEK>e)a/n

<END GREEK> ean (eh-an'); from NT:1487 and NT:302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

also your definition is useless here For Paul said Though I speak in tongues not though I could speak in tongues you are still having to add "COULD" to make it fit you belief. Though I speak or though I could speak Is a really big difference that you have created by adding "COULD" definition though "in case" ok so in case I speak in tongues, NOT in case I could speak in tongues. you add the word Could to make it say what you think it says!

IF I COME TO YOU HOUSE I WILL BRING MY WIFE

IF I COULD COME TO YOUR HOUSE I WOULD BRING MY WIFE!

YOUR ADDING OF "COULD" CHANGES THE WHOLE THOUGHT OF THE STATEMENT

[Butch5]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking in tongues---

 

 

 

I'm from a very strict Pentecostal upbringing and from day one into this faith I've been told and taught that the speaking of tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirits 'touching or baptizing' someone.

I believe and engage actively in speaking the mysterious language and enjoy my time in the Spirit but a fundamental question that is really hitting me again and again is that to what extent is this belief that only speaking in tongues can truly signify the presence of the Holy Ghost?

 

Acts 2 mentions that when the Holy Ghost had come upon the apostles they spoke in tongues. Do we take this as the final sign of the Holy Ghost then? After some studying I think there might be a very fundamental flaw in this assumption. There are many brothers and sisters in the Christian faith who lead holy-lives and in submission to God but don't necessarily speak in tongues. Does that mean the Holy Ghost avoids these people and hasn't touched them? No, I feel it obviously doesn't! The Holy Spirit touches and enters any and every believer who asks of Him to do so with a humble heart. Regardless of one denomination or belief system, the Holy Ghost has been given to all of us and touches us differently. To some it causes the spirit to break free from the limitations of the human speech and break into spiritual Glossolalia and xeno-Glossolalia, to others it causes tremors in the body and heating sensations, still to others many other diverse signs. I feel we do wrong to limit the presence of the Holy Ghost to just the one sign of speaking in tongues. I know just so many fellow Christians who don't speak tongues but I find them to be more spiritual and anointed than I am as a tongue speaker.

 

I Think this is a question worth asking and if any has an answer please do clarify me. I may be wrong but my question isn't.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!

 

Michael

Hi Michael,

 

Paul said that tongues was a sign for unbelievers, not believers. It's my understanding that the gift of tongues was a first century gift given by the Holy Spirit to some believers as a sign to the unbelieving Jews. The Scriptures show us that it was a sign of coming judgment (destruction of Jerusalem) on the Jews for rejecting Christ.  Paul also said that tongues would come to an end. Since it was sign of coming judgment it would seem that after that judgment the sign would no longer be necessary and would as Paul said, end. So, to answer your question, no.

 

could you give scripture reference where tongues are a sign of coming judgment(destruction of Jerusalem)? also the Bible does say that tongues will cease, but also tell us when that will happen:

1 Cor 13:8-10

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

KJV

when that which is perfect is come, is not when the cannon of scriptures was given, for it also says that knowledge shall vanish, knowledge didn't vanish with the fullness of scriptures but rather knowledge increased with scriptures. peter preached Joel's Joel 2) prophecy at Pentecost, and that prophecy spoke that servants and handmaiden prophesy. but also said that the end of those days the sun would darken and the moon turn to blood on the great notable day the Lord come. when that is perfect; is when our fullness comes when I was a child a spake as a child, our fullness comes on the great notable the Lord come.

 

Hi Disciple3,

 

I've written a paper on this subject that you may be interested in reading It's here, "Spiritual Gifts and Their Purpose". The passages of Scripture that speaking of the signs being to Israel are Isaiah chapters 8 and 28. Both chapters speak of a stumbling stone and rock of offense which according to the apostles applies to Christ. In chapter 28 Isaiah says though stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people. This is what Paul is quoting in 1 Cor. 14 when he says,

 

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.  (1Co 14:1 KJG)

 

Paul is quoting Isaiah 28. The sign of tongues was a sign to Israel as Isaiah said. Notice Paul quotes "this people" that's the same thing Isaiah said. "This people" is Israel. Tongues was for a sing to unbelieving Israel, particularly the leadership.

 

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. (Isa 28:11 KJV)

 

Judgment is prophesied against them.

 

14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. (Isa 28:14-21 KJV)

 

KJV  Isaiah 29:1 Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices.

2 Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel.

3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. (Isa 29:1-4 KJV)

 

The cornerstone is Christ which we know from the apostles. So, we know that this prophecy takes place at the time of Christ. It was in AD.70 that the Lord rose up against Jerusalem. It was just prior to this judgment that tongues would be used as a sign to the Jewish leadership that judgment was coming. 

 

 

Regarding the cessation of tongues, if you look closely you'll notice that Paul does not say when tongues will end. He says prophecy and knowledge will end when the maturity comes. I believe he's referring to to completion of the Gospel message. The apostles were not given the entirety of the message all at once, it was revealed to them over time. I believe Paul is saying when the gospel message is complete (the perfect is come) then prophecy and knowledge (supernatural) would end. He said, I know in part but when the maturity comes that which is in part shall be done way with. It was prophecy and knowledge that were in part. When speaking of the cessation of prophecy and knowledge Paul uses the passive voice, yet when he speaks of the cessation of tongues he uses the middle voice indicating that tongues would cease of its own accord. It would seem logical that if tongues was a sign to the unbelieving leadership if Jerusalem it would no longer be necessary after the destruction of Jerusalem and the disbanding of the Priesthood.

 

I am Sorry, we may not see eye to eye on this, I think we all may be guilty to a certain extent of making scriptures fit our belief/doctrine, instead of making our doctrine fit scripture. But I believe your reference to I Cor. 14:

1 Cor 14:21-23

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

KJV

This is confirming Pentecost, which Pentecost had nothing to do with unknown tongues or Angel tongues, it was all different languages that was spoke at Pentecost, that all might hear in their own language/other tongues, and Many knowing the disciples were all from the same area/tongue, then they believed because they heard in their own language. and then even some didn't believe/ wouldn't hear. there are tongues/languages. then there are spiritual gifts of Tongues. rightly dividing the truth/knowing the difference. to say Unknown tongues were a sign for unbelievers, and your interpretation of Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 14 is right. then Acts 19 makes no sense,

Acts 19:1-7

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

KJV

for there were believers that Spake in tongues after believing, but after Paul giving them the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. paul even contradict your understanding of I cor. by saying if unbelievers hear everyone speaking in tongues they would say that the Church people was mad. so your interpretation would be that the Spiritual sign of speaking in tongues would drive unbelievers from church not to the Church. Also Your reference in Isaiah Is speaking Of Jesus, stammering means mockery, Jesus came making a mockery of the Scribes understanding of scriptures, and he spake in another tongue( Aramaic)

Isa 28:11-14

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

KJV

Here we have "he" speaking(one person) not men, as you refer to, also look to whom is being Spoken, scornful men that rule this people in Jerusalem. Jesus speaking to the scribesof this people (Hebrews)

 

There's no contradiction when the tongues are understood as known languages. That's the only tongues that the Scriptures speak of. When Paul speaks of unknown tongues, it's a language unknown to the speaker, not unknown to humanity. And when he speaks of the tongues of angels he uses the conditional "if". He's not saying a person can speak in an angelic language, he's using a hypothetical example, "If" I spoke with the language of angels and had not love. The Spiritual give of tongues was a speaker speaking in a language he did not speak, that is what we see at Pentecost.

 

Additionally, it doesn't contradict 1 Cor 14. Paul said if the unbelievers came into the church and everyone was speaking in tongues they would think the believers were mad. He was addressing the issue of order and speaking orderly. Look at what happened when the apostles first began to speak in tongues.

 

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. (Act 2:1 KJV)

 

Some mocked and said the apostles were drunk. Remember the context of Isaiah 28 is the Jews. Paul isn't talking about 21 century Christians.

 

 Isaiah 28 in the Septuagint reads,

 

LXE  Isaiah 28:11 by reason of the contemptuous words of the lips, by means of another language: for they shall speak to this people, saying to them, (Isa 28:11 LXE)

 

ok first you are adding to scripture, Paul Is Not saying or did not Say "If I could Speak in angel tongues." really big difference here. But you guys have to add the word "could" to scripture, thus making scripture say what you want it to say not what it says. second you are still mixing examples of other languages in scriptures with rules applied to spiritual gifts. the gifts are of speaking in tongues and to another interpretation. there was no interpreter at Pentecost. and to be able to interpret Chinese or Spanish is not a supernatural gift. again let me express this with all I can. If tongues are used in Church in scriptures is just a foreign language, then it would not be and could never be an UNKNOWN TONGUE: for the one speaking that tongue/language would know the tongue, or either the Interpreter would know the language/tongue, so the only way your side can say there is no unknown tongue or angel tongues is to add to the wording of the scriptures" Though I speak" to "though I could speak" plus: 1 Cor 14:27

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

KJV

try adding "could" to this verse and you mess up the whole thought of the verse, so you would have to say that If a Spanish missionary came to your church that could only speak in Spanish, he would not be allowed to speak; for there has to be two or more to speak in Spanish before it should be considered in order plus an interpreter would be required with your doctrine. then if your two or more speakers know Spanish, it would not or could not be an UNKNOWN TONGUE!

as far as your Septuagint seeing in verse 13 That the Lord is speaking; most English translations that I have checked uses HE in 11. "the Lord(HE) said" vs. your's "the Lord(they) said" ????? The Hebrew on my computer uses neither He or They but seeing that the Lord is speaking; to me HE would be a better translation of who is speaking with stammering lips

 

Rather than accusing me of twisting the Scriptures it would be wise to research what I said instead of giving your opinion. Just because you think something would not be an unknown tongue because it doesn't fit your definition doesn't mean that the Scriptures don't consider it an unknown tongue.

 

KJV  1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1Co 13:1 KJV)

 

The Greek word that has been translated Though is,

 

1437 eva,n ean {eh-an'}

Meaning:  1) if, in case

 

Paul was not saying he spoke in tongues of angels, he said if he did. 

 

Secondly, with the gift of tongues the language was a language that was unknown to the speaker not to mankind. That's clear from the account of Pentecost.

 

KJV  Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Act 2:1-11 KJV)

 

There were Galileans that were speaking many different languages that they did not know. It was the spirit that gave them the utterance. The language they were speaking was not known by them. Yet those who were there could hear these men speaking their languages. 

 

An Unknown tongue is not some incoherent sounds that are made by a person and then interpreted by another. God is not the author of confusion. If you have someone just mumbling sounds and another who claims to interpret there is no way to confirm what is claimed by the two. People can be easily lead stray by buying into such assertions. People could make all kinds of claims in such a situation with no way for the church to verify the claim. That's not they way tongues works in the Scriptures. 

 

Regarding the Septuagint reading, if you research you'll find that it is the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used and not the Masoretic text which is what is in your English Bibles. The Masoretic texts from which the English Bibles are translated are of a more recent date than the Septuagint. Thereare quite a few OT quotes in the NT that do not read the same in the Masoretic text, yet are accurate in the Septuagint.

 

let's look at the thought not just what you can write off1 Cor 13:1-2

13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

KJV

are you saying that Paul is saying If I could have the Gift of prophecy, in your teachng on one hand you will preach that Paul was an apostle(some on your side even say the 12th apostle), But Paul is saying in your opinion he don't have the apostle's Gifts? that my friend is what we call speaking out of both sides of the mouth

ns as far as your definition of though: why do you only give your interpretation NT:1437

NT:1437

<START GREEK>e)a/n

<END GREEK> ean (eh-an'); from NT:1487 and NT:302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

also your definition is useless here For Paul said Though I speak in tongues not though I could speak in tongues you are still having to add "COULD" to make it fit you belief. Though I speak or though I could speak Is a really big difference that you have created by adding "COULD" definition f though "in case" ok so in case I speak in tongues, NOT in case I could speak in tongues. you add the word Could to make it say what you think it says!

IF I COME TO YOU HOUSE I WILL BRING MY WIFE

IF I COULD COME TO YOUR HOUSE I WOULD BRING MY WIFE!

YOUR ADDING OF "COULD" CHANGES THE WHOLE THOUGHT OF THE STATEMENT

 

Where exactly do you see the word "could" in my argument. I said that Paul said "If". I didn't add the word could. Paul said, 'if I speak with the tongues of angels.' That doesn't mean he had the ability to do it. If I could fly I'd go to the store. That doesn't mean I can fly. It's a hypothetical statement.

[Guest Butero]

Speaking in tongues---

 

 

 

I'm from a very strict Pentecostal upbringing and from day one into this faith I've been told and taught that the speaking of tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirits 'touching or baptizing' someone.

I believe and engage actively in speaking the mysterious language and enjoy my time in the Spirit but a fundamental question that is really hitting me again and again is that to what extent is this belief that only speaking in tongues can truly signify the presence of the Holy Ghost?

 

Acts 2 mentions that when the Holy Ghost had come upon the apostles they spoke in tongues. Do we take this as the final sign of the Holy Ghost then? After some studying I think there might be a very fundamental flaw in this assumption. There are many brothers and sisters in the Christian faith who lead holy-lives and in submission to God but don't necessarily speak in tongues. Does that mean the Holy Ghost avoids these people and hasn't touched them? No, I feel it obviously doesn't! The Holy Spirit touches and enters any and every believer who asks of Him to do so with a humble heart. Regardless of one denomination or belief system, the Holy Ghost has been given to all of us and touches us differently. To some it causes the spirit to break free from the limitations of the human speech and break into spiritual Glossolalia and xeno-Glossolalia, to others it causes tremors in the body and heating sensations, still to others many other diverse signs. I feel we do wrong to limit the presence of the Holy Ghost to just the one sign of speaking in tongues. I know just so many fellow Christians who don't speak tongues but I find them to be more spiritual and anointed than I am as a tongue speaker.

 

I Think this is a question worth asking and if any has an answer please do clarify me. I may be wrong but my question isn't.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!

 

Michael   

I believe that the initial evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit is speaking in an unknown tongue.  I believe there is a difference between a prayer language you receive when you are baptized in the Holy Spirit, and the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues.  I do believe someone can be saved and never speak in an unknown tongue, but I don't believe you can have the baptism of the Holy Spirit unless you have spoken in an unknown tongue. 

[saved34]

I believe that the initial evidence of being baptized in the Holy Spirit is speaking in an unknown tongue.  I believe there is a difference between a prayer language you receive when you are baptized in the Holy Spirit, and the gift of tongues and interpretation of tongues.  I do believe someone can be saved and never speak in an unknown tongue, but I don't believe you can have the baptism of the Holy Spirit unless you have spoken in an unknown tongue.

 

 

You are not in the body of Christ if you have not been baptized by the Holy Spirit. Scripture speaks of the baptizing of the Spirit as a past event for all who believe. 

 

1Co 12:13  For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body--whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free--and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. 

 

Tongues were a definite sign to the Jews (from all over the known world) during Pentecost. It must be noted that the beginning of THE CHURCH was all Jewish. Pentecost is not an event to be duplicated again and again, but an historical event that marked the formation of Christ's church on earth. Tongues allowed Jews to recognize God's hand at work. Scripture is clear that not all spoke or speak in tongues. The only sign of one having the Holy Spirit is faith. All who believe possesses the Holy Spirit or you are not God's child.

 

Rom 8:9  You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ. 

 

Eph 1:13  And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 

 

Anytime tongues were used as a sign in Acts, notice that a Jew was present. Now that the scriptures are complete, it is a forgone conclusion that all who place trust in Christ has the Holy Spirit sans any sign. The hearing of faith. Tongues are one of the many gifts of the Spirit but it is not a necessary act for all believers to speak with tongues to show they have the Holy Spirit. 

 

Gal 3:2  I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard? 

 

The only constant act we have in relation to the Spirit is the in filling of the Spirit. The Baptism is a past event that God used to birth us (upon faith in Christ) and place us in unity with Christ in his death burial and Resurrection. 

 

[His_disciple3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking in tongues---

 

 

 

I'm from a very strict Pentecostal upbringing and from day one into this faith I've been told and taught that the speaking of tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirits 'touching or baptizing' someone.

I believe and engage actively in speaking the mysterious language and enjoy my time in the Spirit but a fundamental question that is really hitting me again and again is that to what extent is this belief that only speaking in tongues can truly signify the presence of the Holy Ghost?

 

Acts 2 mentions that when the Holy Ghost had come upon the apostles they spoke in tongues. Do we take this as the final sign of the Holy Ghost then? After some studying I think there might be a very fundamental flaw in this assumption. There are many brothers and sisters in the Christian faith who lead holy-lives and in submission to God but don't necessarily speak in tongues. Does that mean the Holy Ghost avoids these people and hasn't touched them? No, I feel it obviously doesn't! The Holy Spirit touches and enters any and every believer who asks of Him to do so with a humble heart. Regardless of one denomination or belief system, the Holy Ghost has been given to all of us and touches us differently. To some it causes the spirit to break free from the limitations of the human speech and break into spiritual Glossolalia and xeno-Glossolalia, to others it causes tremors in the body and heating sensations, still to others many other diverse signs. I feel we do wrong to limit the presence of the Holy Ghost to just the one sign of speaking in tongues. I know just so many fellow Christians who don't speak tongues but I find them to be more spiritual and anointed than I am as a tongue speaker.

 

I Think this is a question worth asking and if any has an answer please do clarify me. I may be wrong but my question isn't.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!

 

Michael

Hi Michael,

 

Paul said that tongues was a sign for unbelievers, not believers. It's my understanding that the gift of tongues was a first century gift given by the Holy Spirit to some believers as a sign to the unbelieving Jews. The Scriptures show us that it was a sign of coming judgment (destruction of Jerusalem) on the Jews for rejecting Christ.  Paul also said that tongues would come to an end. Since it was sign of coming judgment it would seem that after that judgment the sign would no longer be necessary and would as Paul said, end. So, to answer your question, no.

 

could you give scripture reference where tongues are a sign of coming judgment(destruction of Jerusalem)? also the Bible does say that tongues will cease, but also tell us when that will happen:

1 Cor 13:8-10

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

KJV

when that which is perfect is come, is not when the cannon of scriptures was given, for it also says that knowledge shall vanish, knowledge didn't vanish with the fullness of scriptures but rather knowledge increased with scriptures. peter preached Joel's Joel 2) prophecy at Pentecost, and that prophecy spoke that servants and handmaiden prophesy. but also said that the end of those days the sun would darken and the moon turn to blood on the great notable day the Lord come. when that is perfect; is when our fullness comes when I was a child a spake as a child, our fullness comes on the great notable the Lord come.

 

Hi Disciple3,

 

I've written a paper on this subject that you may be interested in reading It's here, "Spiritual Gifts and Their Purpose". The passages of Scripture that speaking of the signs being to Israel are Isaiah chapters 8 and 28. Both chapters speak of a stumbling stone and rock of offense which according to the apostles applies to Christ. In chapter 28 Isaiah says though stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people. This is what Paul is quoting in 1 Cor. 14 when he says,

 

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.  (1Co 14:1 KJG)

 

Paul is quoting Isaiah 28. The sign of tongues was a sign to Israel as Isaiah said. Notice Paul quotes "this people" that's the same thing Isaiah said. "This people" is Israel. Tongues was for a sing to unbelieving Israel, particularly the leadership.

 

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. (Isa 28:11 KJV)

 

Judgment is prophesied against them.

 

14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. (Isa 28:14-21 KJV)

 

KJV  Isaiah 29:1 Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices.

2 Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel.

3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. (Isa 29:1-4 KJV)

 

The cornerstone is Christ which we know from the apostles. So, we know that this prophecy takes place at the time of Christ. It was in AD.70 that the Lord rose up against Jerusalem. It was just prior to this judgment that tongues would be used as a sign to the Jewish leadership that judgment was coming. 

 

 

Regarding the cessation of tongues, if you look closely you'll notice that Paul does not say when tongues will end. He says prophecy and knowledge will end when the maturity comes. I believe he's referring to to completion of the Gospel message. The apostles were not given the entirety of the message all at once, it was revealed to them over time. I believe Paul is saying when the gospel message is complete (the perfect is come) then prophecy and knowledge (supernatural) would end. He said, I know in part but when the maturity comes that which is in part shall be done way with. It was prophecy and knowledge that were in part. When speaking of the cessation of prophecy and knowledge Paul uses the passive voice, yet when he speaks of the cessation of tongues he uses the middle voice indicating that tongues would cease of its own accord. It would seem logical that if tongues was a sign to the unbelieving leadership if Jerusalem it would no longer be necessary after the destruction of Jerusalem and the disbanding of the Priesthood.

 

I am Sorry, we may not see eye to eye on this, I think we all may be guilty to a certain extent of making scriptures fit our belief/doctrine, instead of making our doctrine fit scripture. But I believe your reference to I Cor. 14:

1 Cor 14:21-23

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

KJV

This is confirming Pentecost, which Pentecost had nothing to do with unknown tongues or Angel tongues, it was all different languages that was spoke at Pentecost, that all might hear in their own language/other tongues, and Many knowing the disciples were all from the same area/tongue, then they believed because they heard in their own language. and then even some didn't believe/ wouldn't hear. there are tongues/languages. then there are spiritual gifts of Tongues. rightly dividing the truth/knowing the difference. to say Unknown tongues were a sign for unbelievers, and your interpretation of Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 14 is right. then Acts 19 makes no sense,

Acts 19:1-7

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

KJV

for there were believers that Spake in tongues after believing, but after Paul giving them the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. paul even contradict your understanding of I cor. by saying if unbelievers hear everyone speaking in tongues they would say that the Church people was mad. so your interpretation would be that the Spiritual sign of speaking in tongues would drive unbelievers from church not to the Church. Also Your reference in Isaiah Is speaking Of Jesus, stammering means mockery, Jesus came making a mockery of the Scribes understanding of scriptures, and he spake in another tongue( Aramaic)

Isa 28:11-14

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

KJV

Here we have "he" speaking(one person) not men, as you refer to, also look to whom is being Spoken, scornful men that rule this people in Jerusalem. Jesus speaking to the scribesof this people (Hebrews)

 

There's no contradiction when the tongues are understood as known languages. That's the only tongues that the Scriptures speak of. When Paul speaks of unknown tongues, it's a language unknown to the speaker, not unknown to humanity. And when he speaks of the tongues of angels he uses the conditional "if". He's not saying a person can speak in an angelic language, he's using a hypothetical example, "If" I spoke with the language of angels and had not love. The Spiritual give of tongues was a speaker speaking in a language he did not speak, that is what we see at Pentecost.

 

Additionally, it doesn't contradict 1 Cor 14. Paul said if the unbelievers came into the church and everyone was speaking in tongues they would think the believers were mad. He was addressing the issue of order and speaking orderly. Look at what happened when the apostles first began to speak in tongues.

 

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. (Act 2:1 KJV)

 

Some mocked and said the apostles were drunk. Remember the context of Isaiah 28 is the Jews. Paul isn't talking about 21 century Christians.

 

 Isaiah 28 in the Septuagint reads,

 

LXE  Isaiah 28:11 by reason of the contemptuous words of the lips, by means of another language: for they shall speak to this people, saying to them, (Isa 28:11 LXE)

 

ok first you are adding to scripture, Paul Is Not saying or did not Say "If I could Speak in angel tongues." really big difference here. But you guys have to add the word "could" to scripture, thus making scripture say what you want it to say not what it says. second you are still mixing examples of other languages in scriptures with rules applied to spiritual gifts. the gifts are of speaking in tongues and to another interpretation. there was no interpreter at Pentecost. and to be able to interpret Chinese or Spanish is not a supernatural gift. again let me express this with all I can. If tongues are used in Church in scriptures is just a foreign language, then it would not be and could never be an UNKNOWN TONGUE: for the one speaking that tongue/language would know the tongue, or either the Interpreter would know the language/tongue, so the only way your side can say there is no unknown tongue or angel tongues is to add to the wording of the scriptures" Though I speak" to "though I could speak" plus: 1 Cor 14:27

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

KJV

try adding "could" to this verse and you mess up the whole thought of the verse, so you would have to say that If a Spanish missionary came to your church that could only speak in Spanish, he would not be allowed to speak; for there has to be two or more to speak in Spanish before it should be considered in order plus an interpreter would be required with your doctrine. then if your two or more speakers know Spanish, it would not or could not be an UNKNOWN TONGUE!

as far as your Septuagint seeing in verse 13 That the Lord is speaking; most English translations that I have checked uses HE in 11. "the Lord(HE) said" vs. your's "the Lord(they) said" ????? The Hebrew on my computer uses neither He or They but seeing that the Lord is speaking; to me HE would be a better translation of who is speaking with stammering lips

 

Rather than accusing me of twisting the Scriptures it would be wise to research what I said instead of giving your opinion. Just because you think something would not be an unknown tongue because it doesn't fit your definition doesn't mean that the Scriptures don't consider it an unknown tongue.

 

KJV  1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1Co 13:1 KJV)

 

The Greek word that has been translated Though is,

 

1437 eva,n ean {eh-an'}

Meaning:  1) if, in case

 

Paul was not saying he spoke in tongues of angels, he said if he did. 

 

Secondly, with the gift of tongues the language was a language that was unknown to the speaker not to mankind. That's clear from the account of Pentecost.

 

KJV  Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Act 2:1-11 KJV)

 

There were Galileans that were speaking many different languages that they did not know. It was the spirit that gave them the utterance. The language they were speaking was not known by them. Yet those who were there could hear these men speaking their languages. 

 

An Unknown tongue is not some incoherent sounds that are made by a person and then interpreted by another. God is not the author of confusion. If you have someone just mumbling sounds and another who claims to interpret there is no way to confirm what is claimed by the two. People can be easily lead stray by buying into such assertions. People could make all kinds of claims in such a situation with no way for the church to verify the claim. That's not they way tongues works in the Scriptures. 

 

Regarding the Septuagint reading, if you research you'll find that it is the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used and not the Masoretic text which is what is in your English Bibles. The Masoretic texts from which the English Bibles are translated are of a more recent date than the Septuagint. Thereare quite a few OT quotes in the NT that do not read the same in the Masoretic text, yet are accurate in the Septuagint.

 

let's look at the thought not just what you can write off1 Cor 13:1-2

13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

KJV

are you saying that Paul is saying If I could have the Gift of prophecy, in your teachng on one hand you will preach that Paul was an apostle(some on your side even say the 12th apostle), But Paul is saying in your opinion he don't have the apostle's Gifts? that my friend is what we call speaking out of both sides of the mouth

ns as far as your definition of though: why do you only give your interpretation NT:1437

NT:1437

<START GREEK>e)a/n

<END GREEK> ean (eh-an'); from NT:1487 and NT:302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

also your definition is useless here For Paul said Though I speak in tongues not though I could speak in tongues you are still having to add "COULD" to make it fit you belief. Though I speak or though I could speak Is a really big difference that you have created by adding "COULD" definition f though "in case" ok so in case I speak in tongues, NOT in case I could speak in tongues. you add the word Could to make it say what you think it says!

IF I COME TO YOU HOUSE I WILL BRING MY WIFE

IF I COULD COME TO YOUR HOUSE I WOULD BRING MY WIFE!

YOUR ADDING OF "COULD" CHANGES THE WHOLE THOUGHT OF THE STATEMENT

 

Where exactly do you see the word "could" in my argument. I said that Paul said "If". I didn't add the word could. Paul said, 'if I speak with the tongues of angels.' That doesn't mean he had the ability to do it. If I could fly I'd go to the store. That doesn't mean I can fly. It's a hypothetical statement.

 

here is your quote

" And when he speaks of the tongues of angels he uses the conditional "if". He's not saying a person can speak in an angelic language, he's using a hypothetical example, "If" I spoke with the language of angels and had not love. The Spiritual give of tongues was a speaker speaking in a language he did not speak, that is what we see at Pentecost."

 

you are saying that Paul is not say that a person can speak, so If I Can(could) In case I speak , when I speak is what Paul is saying you said he didn't say that He could/can speak in angels tongues, and you have avoided addressing the other verse That I gave where It is UNKNOWN TONGUE:

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

KJV

try adding "could" to this verse and you mess up the whole thought of the verse, so you would have to say that If a Spanish missionary came to your church that could only speak in Spanish, he would not be allowed to speak; for there has to be two or more to speak in Spanish before it should be considered in order plus an interpreter would be required with your doctrine. then if your two or more speakers know Spanish, it would not or could not be an UNKNOWN TONGUE! there is clearly an unknown tongue so your theory that the gift of tongues is just a foreign language won't wash

[Butch5]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speaking in tongues---

 

 

 

I'm from a very strict Pentecostal upbringing and from day one into this faith I've been told and taught that the speaking of tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirits 'touching or baptizing' someone.

I believe and engage actively in speaking the mysterious language and enjoy my time in the Spirit but a fundamental question that is really hitting me again and again is that to what extent is this belief that only speaking in tongues can truly signify the presence of the Holy Ghost?

 

Acts 2 mentions that when the Holy Ghost had come upon the apostles they spoke in tongues. Do we take this as the final sign of the Holy Ghost then? After some studying I think there might be a very fundamental flaw in this assumption. There are many brothers and sisters in the Christian faith who lead holy-lives and in submission to God but don't necessarily speak in tongues. Does that mean the Holy Ghost avoids these people and hasn't touched them? No, I feel it obviously doesn't! The Holy Spirit touches and enters any and every believer who asks of Him to do so with a humble heart. Regardless of one denomination or belief system, the Holy Ghost has been given to all of us and touches us differently. To some it causes the spirit to break free from the limitations of the human speech and break into spiritual Glossolalia and xeno-Glossolalia, to others it causes tremors in the body and heating sensations, still to others many other diverse signs. I feel we do wrong to limit the presence of the Holy Ghost to just the one sign of speaking in tongues. I know just so many fellow Christians who don't speak tongues but I find them to be more spiritual and anointed than I am as a tongue speaker.

 

I Think this is a question worth asking and if any has an answer please do clarify me. I may be wrong but my question isn't.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!

 

Michael

Hi Michael,

 

Paul said that tongues was a sign for unbelievers, not believers. It's my understanding that the gift of tongues was a first century gift given by the Holy Spirit to some believers as a sign to the unbelieving Jews. The Scriptures show us that it was a sign of coming judgment (destruction of Jerusalem) on the Jews for rejecting Christ.  Paul also said that tongues would come to an end. Since it was sign of coming judgment it would seem that after that judgment the sign would no longer be necessary and would as Paul said, end. So, to answer your question, no.

 

could you give scripture reference where tongues are a sign of coming judgment(destruction of Jerusalem)? also the Bible does say that tongues will cease, but also tell us when that will happen:

1 Cor 13:8-10

8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.

9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

KJV

when that which is perfect is come, is not when the cannon of scriptures was given, for it also says that knowledge shall vanish, knowledge didn't vanish with the fullness of scriptures but rather knowledge increased with scriptures. peter preached Joel's Joel 2) prophecy at Pentecost, and that prophecy spoke that servants and handmaiden prophesy. but also said that the end of those days the sun would darken and the moon turn to blood on the great notable day the Lord come. when that is perfect; is when our fullness comes when I was a child a spake as a child, our fullness comes on the great notable the Lord come.

 

Hi Disciple3,

 

I've written a paper on this subject that you may be interested in reading It's here, "Spiritual Gifts and Their Purpose". The passages of Scripture that speaking of the signs being to Israel are Isaiah chapters 8 and 28. Both chapters speak of a stumbling stone and rock of offense which according to the apostles applies to Christ. In chapter 28 Isaiah says though stammering lips and another tongue He will speak to this people. This is what Paul is quoting in 1 Cor. 14 when he says,

 

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. 22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.  (1Co 14:1 KJG)

 

Paul is quoting Isaiah 28. The sign of tongues was a sign to Israel as Isaiah said. Notice Paul quotes "this people" that's the same thing Isaiah said. "This people" is Israel. Tongues was for a sing to unbelieving Israel, particularly the leadership.

 

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. (Isa 28:11 KJV)

 

Judgment is prophesied against them.

 

14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:

16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.

18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.

20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.

21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act. (Isa 28:14-21 KJV)

 

KJV  Isaiah 29:1 Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices.

2 Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel.

3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. (Isa 29:1-4 KJV)

 

The cornerstone is Christ which we know from the apostles. So, we know that this prophecy takes place at the time of Christ. It was in AD.70 that the Lord rose up against Jerusalem. It was just prior to this judgment that tongues would be used as a sign to the Jewish leadership that judgment was coming. 

 

 

Regarding the cessation of tongues, if you look closely you'll notice that Paul does not say when tongues will end. He says prophecy and knowledge will end when the maturity comes. I believe he's referring to to completion of the Gospel message. The apostles were not given the entirety of the message all at once, it was revealed to them over time. I believe Paul is saying when the gospel message is complete (the perfect is come) then prophecy and knowledge (supernatural) would end. He said, I know in part but when the maturity comes that which is in part shall be done way with. It was prophecy and knowledge that were in part. When speaking of the cessation of prophecy and knowledge Paul uses the passive voice, yet when he speaks of the cessation of tongues he uses the middle voice indicating that tongues would cease of its own accord. It would seem logical that if tongues was a sign to the unbelieving leadership if Jerusalem it would no longer be necessary after the destruction of Jerusalem and the disbanding of the Priesthood.

 

I am Sorry, we may not see eye to eye on this, I think we all may be guilty to a certain extent of making scriptures fit our belief/doctrine, instead of making our doctrine fit scripture. But I believe your reference to I Cor. 14:

1 Cor 14:21-23

21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.

22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?

KJV

This is confirming Pentecost, which Pentecost had nothing to do with unknown tongues or Angel tongues, it was all different languages that was spoke at Pentecost, that all might hear in their own language/other tongues, and Many knowing the disciples were all from the same area/tongue, then they believed because they heard in their own language. and then even some didn't believe/ wouldn't hear. there are tongues/languages. then there are spiritual gifts of Tongues. rightly dividing the truth/knowing the difference. to say Unknown tongues were a sign for unbelievers, and your interpretation of Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 14 is right. then Acts 19 makes no sense,

Acts 19:1-7

19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

KJV

for there were believers that Spake in tongues after believing, but after Paul giving them the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. paul even contradict your understanding of I cor. by saying if unbelievers hear everyone speaking in tongues they would say that the Church people was mad. so your interpretation would be that the Spiritual sign of speaking in tongues would drive unbelievers from church not to the Church. Also Your reference in Isaiah Is speaking Of Jesus, stammering means mockery, Jesus came making a mockery of the Scribes understanding of scriptures, and he spake in another tongue( Aramaic)

Isa 28:11-14

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

14 Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

KJV

Here we have "he" speaking(one person) not men, as you refer to, also look to whom is being Spoken, scornful men that rule this people in Jerusalem. Jesus speaking to the scribesof this people (Hebrews)

 

There's no contradiction when the tongues are understood as known languages. That's the only tongues that the Scriptures speak of. When Paul speaks of unknown tongues, it's a language unknown to the speaker, not unknown to humanity. And when he speaks of the tongues of angels he uses the conditional "if". He's not saying a person can speak in an angelic language, he's using a hypothetical example, "If" I spoke with the language of angels and had not love. The Spiritual give of tongues was a speaker speaking in a language he did not speak, that is what we see at Pentecost.

 

Additionally, it doesn't contradict 1 Cor 14. Paul said if the unbelievers came into the church and everyone was speaking in tongues they would think the believers were mad. He was addressing the issue of order and speaking orderly. Look at what happened when the apostles first began to speak in tongues.

 

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12 And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13 Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine. (Act 2:1 KJV)

 

Some mocked and said the apostles were drunk. Remember the context of Isaiah 28 is the Jews. Paul isn't talking about 21 century Christians.

 

 Isaiah 28 in the Septuagint reads,

 

LXE  Isaiah 28:11 by reason of the contemptuous words of the lips, by means of another language: for they shall speak to this people, saying to them, (Isa 28:11 LXE)

 

ok first you are adding to scripture, Paul Is Not saying or did not Say "If I could Speak in angel tongues." really big difference here. But you guys have to add the word "could" to scripture, thus making scripture say what you want it to say not what it says. second you are still mixing examples of other languages in scriptures with rules applied to spiritual gifts. the gifts are of speaking in tongues and to another interpretation. there was no interpreter at Pentecost. and to be able to interpret Chinese or Spanish is not a supernatural gift. again let me express this with all I can. If tongues are used in Church in scriptures is just a foreign language, then it would not be and could never be an UNKNOWN TONGUE: for the one speaking that tongue/language would know the tongue, or either the Interpreter would know the language/tongue, so the only way your side can say there is no unknown tongue or angel tongues is to add to the wording of the scriptures" Though I speak" to "though I could speak" plus: 1 Cor 14:27

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

KJV

try adding "could" to this verse and you mess up the whole thought of the verse, so you would have to say that If a Spanish missionary came to your church that could only speak in Spanish, he would not be allowed to speak; for there has to be two or more to speak in Spanish before it should be considered in order plus an interpreter would be required with your doctrine. then if your two or more speakers know Spanish, it would not or could not be an UNKNOWN TONGUE!

as far as your Septuagint seeing in verse 13 That the Lord is speaking; most English translations that I have checked uses HE in 11. "the Lord(HE) said" vs. your's "the Lord(they) said" ????? The Hebrew on my computer uses neither He or They but seeing that the Lord is speaking; to me HE would be a better translation of who is speaking with stammering lips

 

Rather than accusing me of twisting the Scriptures it would be wise to research what I said instead of giving your opinion. Just because you think something would not be an unknown tongue because it doesn't fit your definition doesn't mean that the Scriptures don't consider it an unknown tongue.

 

KJV  1 Corinthians 13:1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1Co 13:1 KJV)

 

The Greek word that has been translated Though is,

 

1437 eva,n ean {eh-an'}

Meaning:  1) if, in case

 

Paul was not saying he spoke in tongues of angels, he said if he did. 

 

Secondly, with the gift of tongues the language was a language that was unknown to the speaker not to mankind. That's clear from the account of Pentecost.

 

KJV  Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.

2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.

3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. (Act 2:1-11 KJV)

 

There were Galileans that were speaking many different languages that they did not know. It was the spirit that gave them the utterance. The language they were speaking was not known by them. Yet those who were there could hear these men speaking their languages. 

 

An Unknown tongue is not some incoherent sounds that are made by a person and then interpreted by another. God is not the author of confusion. If you have someone just mumbling sounds and another who claims to interpret there is no way to confirm what is claimed by the two. People can be easily lead stray by buying into such assertions. People could make all kinds of claims in such a situation with no way for the church to verify the claim. That's not they way tongues works in the Scriptures. 

 

Regarding the Septuagint reading, if you research you'll find that it is the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used and not the Masoretic text which is what is in your English Bibles. The Masoretic texts from which the English Bibles are translated are of a more recent date than the Septuagint. Thereare quite a few OT quotes in the NT that do not read the same in the Masoretic text, yet are accurate in the Septuagint.

 

let's look at the thought not just what you can write off1 Cor 13:1-2

13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

KJV

are you saying that Paul is saying If I could have the Gift of prophecy, in your teachng on one hand you will preach that Paul was an apostle(some on your side even say the 12th apostle), But Paul is saying in your opinion he don't have the apostle's Gifts? that my friend is what we call speaking out of both sides of the mouth

ns as far as your definition of though: why do you only give your interpretation NT:1437

NT:1437

<START GREEK>e)a/n

<END GREEK> ean (eh-an'); from NT:1487 and NT:302; a conditional particle; in case that, provided, etc.; often used in connection with other particles to denote indefiniteness or uncertainty:

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

also your definition is useless here For Paul said Though I speak in tongues not though I could speak in tongues you are still having to add "COULD" to make it fit you belief. Though I speak or though I could speak Is a really big difference that you have created by adding "COULD" definition f though "in case" ok so in case I speak in tongues, NOT in case I could speak in tongues. you add the word Could to make it say what you think it says!

IF I COME TO YOU HOUSE I WILL BRING MY WIFE

IF I COULD COME TO YOUR HOUSE I WOULD BRING MY WIFE!

YOUR ADDING OF "COULD" CHANGES THE WHOLE THOUGHT OF THE STATEMENT

 

Where exactly do you see the word "could" in my argument. I said that Paul said "If". I didn't add the word could. Paul said, 'if I speak with the tongues of angels.' That doesn't mean he had the ability to do it. If I could fly I'd go to the store. That doesn't mean I can fly. It's a hypothetical statement.

 

here is your quote

" And when he speaks of the tongues of angels he uses the conditional "if". He's not saying a person can speak in an angelic language, he's using a hypothetical example, "If" I spoke with the language of angels and had not love. The Spiritual give of tongues was a speaker speaking in a language he did not speak, that is what we see at Pentecost."

 

you are saying that Paul is not say that a person can speak, so If I Can(could) In case I speak , when I speak is what Paul is saying you said he didn't say that He could/can speak in angels tongues, and you have avoided addressing the other verse That I gave where It is UNKNOWN TONGUE:

27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.

KJV

try adding "could" to this verse and you mess up the whole thought of the verse, so you would have to say that If a Spanish missionary came to your church that could only speak in Spanish, he would not be allowed to speak; for there has to be two or more to speak in Spanish before it should be considered in order plus an interpreter would be required with your doctrine. then if your two or more speakers know Spanish, it would not or could not be an UNKNOWN TONGUE! there is clearly an unknown tongue so your theory that the gift of tongues is just a foreign language won't wash

 

He used the word, if. If I speak with tongues of angels does not mean that he had that ability. If I could fly I'd go to the store. That doesn't mean I can fly. 

 

I did address the unknown tongue issue. I said the unknown tongue is a language that is unknown to the speaker it's not a language that is unknown to mankind. If Peter is a Galilean and speaks that language then suddenly stands up and begins to speak the language of the Persians he is speaking in an unknown language. He doesn't know it. It doesn't mean the language isn't know by anyone in the world. A language is a form of communication between people. If no one knows what the sounds mean it's not a language it's just noise.

[Openly Curious]

 

Speaking in tongues---

 

 

 

I'm from a very strict Pentecostal upbringing and from day one into this faith I've been told and taught that the speaking of tongues is a sign of the Holy Spirits 'touching or baptizing' someone.

I believe and engage actively in speaking the mysterious language and enjoy my time in the Spirit but a fundamental question that is really hitting me again and again is that to what extent is this belief that only speaking in tongues can truly signify the presence of the Holy Ghost?

 

Acts 2 mentions that when the Holy Ghost had come upon the apostles they spoke in tongues. Do we take this as the final sign of the Holy Ghost then? After some studying I think there might be a very fundamental flaw in this assumption. There are many brothers and sisters in the Christian faith who lead holy-lives and in submission to God but don't necessarily speak in tongues. Does that mean the Holy Ghost avoids these people and hasn't touched them? No, I feel it obviously doesn't! The Holy Spirit touches and enters any and every believer who asks of Him to do so with a humble heart. Regardless of one denomination or belief system, the Holy Ghost has been given to all of us and touches us differently. To some it causes the spirit to break free from the limitations of the human speech and break into spiritual Glossolalia and xeno-Glossolalia, to others it causes tremors in the body and heating sensations, still to others many other diverse signs. I feel we do wrong to limit the presence of the Holy Ghost to just the one sign of speaking in tongues. I know just so many fellow Christians who don't speak tongues but I find them to be more spiritual and anointed than I am as a tongue speaker.

 

I Think this is a question worth asking and if any has an answer please do clarify me. I may be wrong but my question isn't.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who answers!

 

Michael   

Hi Michael,

 

Paul said that tongues was a sign for unbelievers, not believers. It's my understanding that the gift of tongues was a first century gift given by the Holy Spirit to some believers as a sign to the unbelieving Jews. The Scriptures show us that it was a sign of coming judgment (destruction of Jerusalem) on the Jews for rejecting Christ.  Paul also said that tongues would come to an end. Since it was sign of coming judgment it would seem that after that judgment the sign would no longer be necessary and would as Paul said, end. So, to answer your question, no. 

 

 

God does not use the gifts of the Spirit as signs of coming judgment that is not what they are used and given for.  There was a large number of believers on the day of Pentecost in the upper room waiting on the gift of the Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit filled the room and they were filled with the Spirit and spoke in tongues.  There were no unbelievers there in the upper room.  So you can't say that it was just a sign to the unbelievers.